Has anyone seen this thread on steam:-

http [colon slash slash] steamcommunity [dot] com [slash] app [slash] 234140 [slash] discussions [slash] 0 [slash] 154644045356150979

i find it funny as to why the company has to defend denuvo to the bitter end and even insult the witcher 3's drm-free stance. i'm not saying i disagree with it (or agree with it) but the way it is written is...interesting.

Let Me Fix That For You.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/234140/discussions/0/154644045356150979/

No comment.......but have a link.
Bollocks......slow typing.

Sorry for the language:

These mofos don't even feel the need to tell potential customers that the title is infested with Denuvo, hooray!

Off the wishlist that pile of garbage goes.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/234140/discussions/0/154644045356150979 Who is "the company"? The maker of Denuvo? Valve? I have no idea who that "Laptop65" is who has written the FAQ.

As to the part about The Witcher 3, I didn't see much problem there. They admitted that TW3 may have sold quite well (without DRM and Denuvo). but that it was also heavily pirated and that a developer might feel angry for their product being pirated. That all made sense to me and sounded plausible.

Realizing that, it makes me just extra happy for having supported CDPR (and GOG.com) by buying the game, as they released it without DRM/Denuvo even if many filthy pirates ended up playing it without paying. Yes, I understand why developers want to keep total control over their games (even up to offering their game in a streaming service so that it can never be cracked), but I prefer the publishers who give the control to their users instead.

As I've also said before, I wouldn't mind CDPR going heavy handed after the pirates who do pirate their games (something that they did with TW2). Offering their game DRM-free does not mean the same as accepting piracy.

I don't know, after reading it I found it rather reasonable and informative honestly. Seems they addressed most of the questions you might have about it. Granted, I think it's better for Denuvo to be mentioned on the store page for those inclined to be paranoid about it.

What timppu said, but I would like to add that not stating directly that a game uses Denuvo is being insincere to your customers, some of whom might not like it for various reasons.

That gave me a good laugh.

Good point, I want to always know what I'm getting into.

I guess that is why I like GOG.com after all, no such guesswork that would affect me personally.

This game was DRM free? When I got my disc on the day, I wasn't allowed to install it without Galaxy and a day one patch. Sounds awfully DRM-ish to me. Oh but GOG don't do that... yeah, shite!

Fairly well balanced FAQ, although I do find it quite amusing how they say Steam, Origin, Uplay and others are DRM, but Denuvo is not.

That aside though, I played through Dragon Age Inquisition, which has Denuvo, and never noticed any issues with it whatsoever. My biggest concern with it is its effect on modding, so hopefully publishers/devs don't decide to encrypt everything to the point where modding is next to impossible.

Reasonable? Dunno, but most of what's written there is...eh. Especially the Witcher 3 section is bs. Hilarious, for two reasons. The first one is that the explanation is obviously wrong. The second one:

I agree totally. Using the Steam search function to look up Denuvo-related threads and reading through the responses that moderator(?) gave, reminds me why I rather spent my time here, among the crazy folks on GOG.
Denuvo is "an anti-tamper measure" that you have to activate while online and which, from time to time, re-checks for a valid activation, but it is supposedly not DRM?!

I've played games using Denuvo and didn't experience much trouble with them, but it boggles my mind why the developers are so up in arms about defending it, while not openly stating neither on the store front nor in the end user license agreement that they make use of this technology.
If it's fine, it's fine, why keep it a secret then? Because they know people care about it, that's why.

Their attitude is also pretty "interesting" to put it nicely. While locking a thread named Denuvo really needs to be listed the moderator/developer Laptop65 states:
Denuvo isn't going to be ended just because a select few don't like it when the majority do not mind / care that it is there. Play the game and enjoy it for what it is (along with other Denuvo-enabled games), or don't... no one will care either way.

Right, we don't know how exactly it works and what it does and that exactly is why we don't have reason to believe you, it would not break something. The FAQ doesn't help with that, at all. Quite the contrary.

Also, apparently, Denuvo is (partly) to blame for the lack of mods, which would be another thing making it a lot more annoying, for me at least.

Heyho and a Merry Xmas.

Midoryu
_____________________________
Edited 15 minutes later: Fixed typing error.

I think that FAQ is a bit Denuvo fanboy-ish, but isn't too bad.

The parts I disagree with:
1) It seems to be suggesting that CDPR would've made more money using Denuvo because of pirating, which I'm not so sure is crystal clear.

2) It downplays Denuvo as DRM with it's strange argument. So SecuROM or Stardrive weren't really DRM either because they weren't concerned with online rights management? Seems quite a stretch.

3) It also seems to be downplaying the possible performance issues. May depend upon the implementation, but I was under the impression that some level of performance loss was shown in certain game implementations. This probably relates to the explanation about which and how many files are encrypted. Even the SSD thing, I wouldn't be surprised, given the extra encryption, if a computer is low on RAM, that potentially it *could* increase the number of writes. Of course this could also be the result of poor optimization unrelated to Denuvo.